When will the takeover go through? The Waiting Game...

[sufc4life21]

Some do and some probably don't.

All they want is to take ownership of the club and run it properly.

That's all the fans want.

We are the mercy of greedy business men and a woefully inept council.

If I were the consortium I would publicly set a date in which completion needs to happen and then pull out.

I don't want them to and think they are the future of our club, but they are being taken for mugs

I agree. Interms of setting deadlines as such there caught in rock and a hard place due to already putting 3.5 mill in. Must be difficult situation and stressful 1 to Interms of what approach to take next. Do we carry on putting money in with the hope that everything resolved Interms of becoming owners of the football club or bail out now before it gets to messy ie down few more million without becoming owners. Tricky situation.

Whatever decision the consortium take they have my support.

 

[kentblues]

Is the risk of rental voids a new risk? What is the situation with the current deal - who bears the risk in that deal?

I am assuming to a degree this is councillors having the basic principles of such a housing transaction explained to them. It cannot be new in any way shape or form no. And always have in the back of your mind that often what is said is politics not reality.

SBC will be taking the residential units on 55 year leases after which freehold ownership transfers. Surely the leaseholder is SBC, it’s as if they own the residential units, and there is no world in which if they fail to collect rent somehow someone else picks up the tab? If you buy a flat on leasehold and rent it out who do you expect to pay if your tenant leaves and there’s a gap to a new one? Even if an agency guarantees the rent it’s only because they collect across all properties via higher fees. Nothing is free. This is Janet and John surely?

What you do, and same would apply to say holiday lets, is budget for a certain occupancy rate. Then the achieved rents cover any periods of vacancy. It’s this financial model, with input from housing experts, taking into account costs and achievable rents and likely occupancy rates that will be reported on for approval? SBC could rent all units via an agency but the fees would just be funding vacancies in a different way? And putting up rents a bit further.

Am I missing something?? If I’m not then a few councillors deliberately misunderstanding to enjoy a bit of limelight or whatever shouldn’t blow anything off course.

 

[Flinty]

Not forgetting now that the consortium are now £3m into the club and it not out of the question that they are now where the Rat wants them also…agree to my demands or lose your £3m

 

[kentblues]

You can't blame any councillors that are very concerned about still paying rent on empty properties. By any standards that is a rotten deal and needs to be renegotiated. Annoyingly this will further kick the can down the road as far as the deal is concerned.

As per my other post it absolutely is not. It’s entirely normal as surely councillors who have made any effort to study the proposal would know..

 

[Tommy2holes]

I am assuming to a degree this is councillors having the basic principles of such a housing transaction explained to them. It cannot be new in any way shape or form no. And always have in the back of your mind that often what is said is politics not reality.

SBC will be taking the residential units on 55 year leases after which freehold ownership transfers. Surely the leaseholder is SBC, it’s as if they own the residential units, and there is no world in which if they fail to collect rent somehow someone else picks up the tab? If you buy a flat on leasehold and rent it out who do you expect to pay if your tenant leaves and there’s a gap to a new one? Even if an agency guarantees the rent it’s only because they collect across all properties via higher fees. Nothing is free. This is Janet and John surely?

What you do, and same would apply to say holiday lets, is budget for a certain occupancy rate. Then the achieved rents cover any periods of vacancy. It’s this financial model, with input from housing experts, taking into account costs and achievable rents and likely occupancy rates that will be reported on for approval? SBC could rent all units via an agency but the fees would just be funding vacancies in a different way? And putting up rents a bit further.

Am I missing something?? If I’m not then a few councillors deliberately misunderstanding to enjoy a bit of limelight or whatever shouldn’t blow anything off course.

The issue I take with this is that the rents are apparently going to be 20% higher than standard rents. Assuming a standard rent on a 2 bed property is £1200 per month, then these are likely to rent at around £1400+ for a 2 bed flat.

Who is going to afford such properties and in area next to a sewage works and quite some distance from anything of note. It's hardly city or sea front living.

These properties should have been vitally needed social housing at a reduced rate and not the complete opposite.

 

[SUFCGoals]

The issue I take with this is that the rents are apparently going to be 20% higher than standard rents. Assuming a standard rent on a 2 bed property is £1200 per month, then these are likely to rent at around £1400+ for a 2 bed flat.

Who is going to afford such properties and in area next to a sewage works and quite some distance from anything of note. It's hardly city or sea front living.

These properties should have been vitally needed social housing at a reduced rate and not the complete opposite.

I wish my 2 bed property was only £1.4k a month...

 

[defender05]

Unfortunately we are stuck in the middle, we have potential new owners who only wanted the football club and the financial backers who only wanted the housing project.

If we had another option to build a stadium elsewhere then the deal would have been done ages ago.

 

[GBJ]

I guess it's not a new risk as such, but a greater one now the goalposts have been moved (by the rat) and the development is a lot more "high end" now. Resulting in increased risk some of the apartments will be left empty with SCC having to foot the bill.

The worrying thing is, when the council had their little meetings a few weeks ago, they had tentatively agreed to Ron’s stipulations, but the noise that has been made following the elections would indicate that that deal will not happen.

My concern is that Ron has been forced to move the goalposts, to cover the other debts/liabilities that he owes. If he will not budge on that, and the council refuse to accept it, the deal is ultimately dead in the water.

Ratty and Jr have played a blinder, they really have. SCC now have a sitation where they need to try and save the club and at the same time make sure they dont have hundreds of empty "high end" apartments, that could bankrupt the Council.

Added to that, we now have CBRE kicking off as they aren't happy with the scheduling of the proposed £20m RH redevelopment kickback. Again, not surprsing when they are owed £45m or whatever it is.

It's a total mess and I was hoping a few months back we were nearing an end to this. Now, I just don't know where we go from here. Next season looks another that could be doomed, before its even started. More worryingly, where do COSU draw the line and pull out, considering they're already £3.5m deep?

We are being held hostage and we need to do something drastic. But, what?

Again, it truly depends on whether this is all down to greed or necessity on Ron’s part.

Can he afford to take a cut on the rents? If so, then the course of action would be to bombard Benfleet Road & Camden (that’s the weak point IMO) until he does so.

If he can’t budge on that figure then the council may have to concede ground, but what action can we do to put them in a position where they risk the future of the city, to save an ailing (albeit superb) football club?

This isn't going to happen is it.

Let's look at the worst case scenario.

Council don't approve the deal. The consortium walk away.

Can Ron still build the original deal? Will the council allow that?

He hasn’t got the money to run the club, so it would go into either administration or liquidation, meaning a stadium at FF would no longer be required. Ergo, the plans would need to be changed for that reason alone. I would think.

The club would be sunk in its current guise im sure but what would happen to the roots hall site. Surely the council would not be stupid enough to allow building on the roots hall site??

Without getting political, I think that Labour Party want to make it a manifesto pledge to build 1.5m new homes across England.

RH is a prime bit of land & it’ll be hard to turn down a cogent planning application.

I would also be nice for the consortium to set out their position in the increasingly likely situation that this drags on or doesn't get agreed. Even if it's bad news, at least the cards would be on the table..

Agreed. I would expect some form of statement to appear sooner rather than later. It might not be what we want to hear, but at least we’ll know.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

I am assuming to a degree this is councillors having the basic principles of such a housing transaction explained to them. It cannot be new in any way shape or form no. And always have in the back of your mind that often what is said is politics not reality.

SBC will be taking the residential units on 55 year leases after which freehold ownership transfers. Surely the leaseholder is SBC, it’s as if they own the residential units, and there is no world in which if they fail to collect rent somehow someone else picks up the tab? If you buy a flat on leasehold and rent it out who do you expect to pay if your tenant leaves and there’s a gap to a new one? Even if an agency guarantees the rent it’s only because they collect across all properties via higher fees. Nothing is free. This is Janet and John surely?

What you do, and same would apply to say holiday lets, is budget for a certain occupancy rate. Then the achieved rents cover any periods of vacancy. It’s this financial model, with input from housing experts, taking into account costs and achievable rents and likely occupancy rates that will be reported on for approval? SBC could rent all units via an agency but the fees would just be funding vacancies in a different way? And putting up rents a bit further.

Am I missing something?? If I’m not then a few councillors deliberately misunderstanding to enjoy a bit of limelight or whatever shouldn’t blow anything off course.

Absolutely this, you're not missing anything.

The issue is that often Councillors will not understand the nuances of deals as well as the paid officers or their advisors - I guess you can't expect them to, as for most it will be outside their field of professional knowledge and experience. They are however often speaking to the press and what they say often doesn't tie in with reality or indeed the final decision made. I used to work in Local Authorities in both planning and housing so speak from bitter experience! (I got out many years ago now!).

The best barometer here is reading the reports from the officers who have taken professional advice and seem largely OK about the deal, subject to the last few bits of info. and advice being received. That's not to say the councillors can't derail the process but usually the consequences of such a decision contrary to officers' advice will be clearly explained to them by senior officers/lawyers and most frequently such public bluster blows itself out when the cold hard facts are presented to them.

With regards to the land deal for Roots Hall, @Medway Blue has explained very clearly many times that because of the charges on the land the consortium cannot buy the freehold of Roots Hall at the same time as they buy the club. The charges on the site cannot be removed until such time as there's another asset to transfer them to (i.e. Fossetts Farm with a revised planning approval) or the loan is paid off. COSU/POSU will therefore be taking a lease on Roots Hall until such time as the charges are removed and they can buy the freehold. This bit has been known for a while, they do seem to be waiting for something from the people with the charge (CBRE) before they complete the purchase though which was reported as "consent from the Martins' finance partner". I assume this may be consent for COSU/POSU to lease the site.

My naive understanding of the situation would be, like when you mortgage your home, you can't rent it out without the consent of the lender. It's to protect the lender who if the borrower defaults on the loan (*cough, Ron), might need to take possession of the site in order to sell it to get their money back. That becomes more complicated if someone, other than the borrower, has security of tender to occupy it.

It sounds like they might be stalling over this because they're not happy with some aspects of the longer term part of the deal which may affect how soon they can transfer their charge over. Obviously once there is a lease granted to COSU/POSU it's a bit more difficult to argue about anything - I'm guessing over that bit, but it sounds like a plausible explanation.

 

[Tommy2holes]

I wish my 2 bed property was only £1.4k a month...

Worlds gone mad when a two bed flat costs £1400+ per month in Southend

 

[Leeboy]

I've just Tweeted BBC Essex Sport to ask them to get involved - us fans need to know the truth

 

[AlfaShrimper]

You would think we deserve a statement from the consortium now. I'd even back them giving a date to walk away if this isn't resolved. I'd rather rip the bandage off now and get it over if they are gonna walk

 

[Bromley Blue]

You would think we deserve a statement from the consortium now. I'd even back them giving a date to walk away if this isn't resolved. I'd rather rip the bandage off now and get it over if they are gonna walk

Why?

It’s not like there’s a queue of willing investors as alternative options. And even if there was then we’d be back to square one again with another party needing to do Those words are banned etc on Ron’s web of debt ridden companies.

Someone’s got to back down to just get this thing done.

 

[ForeverBlue]

Fans need to stop venting their anger towards the council and laying the blame at their door for any delays.

Granted, they certainly haven’t bent over backwards to help the club over the years, I do understand that, however, the sole reason we’re not under new ownership right now is because of the Martin’s and no one else!

I’ll bet good money this will be a repeat of the Kimura deal all over again!!

What I struggle most to understand is this,
We average around 6,000 for home games and will take over 500 fans on a 600 mile round trip to Gateshead, and yet we’ll struggle to attract more than 20-30 fans sometimes to a planned protest on a Saturday morning for a couple of hours at Ron’s house, a mere 15 minute drive from RH

This to me blows my mind considering the damage the Martin family are doing to the club for their own personal greed and agenda!

 

[AlfaShrimper]

Why?

It’s not like there’s a queue of willing investors as alternative options. And even if there was then we’d be back to square one again with another party needing to do Those words are banned etc on Ron’s web of debt ridden companies.

Someone’s got to back down to just get this thing done.

At this rate I can only see it going one way. They either need to come out and say.. we will see this through until the end or that they can't sustain this

 

[kentblues]

As far as I can see the only news here in reality is that DD will now be completed "towards the end of the month" and it will then take a couple of weeks to sign off. The timing has slipped (maybe it was never realistic and people were be told what they wanted to hear?).
Other than this as far as I can see nothing has changed. The new council that is about to be installed seem committed to approving as a matter of urgency. And it remains a delegated decision (also confirmed).

 

[kentblues]

The issue I take with this is that the rents are apparently going to be 20% higher than standard rents. Assuming a standard rent on a 2 bed property is £1200 per month, then these are likely to rent at around £1400+ for a 2 bed flat.

Who is going to afford such properties and in area next to a sewage works and quite some distance from anything of note. It's hardly city or sea front living.

These properties should have been vitally needed social housing at a reduced rate and not the complete opposite.

Well there are are 13% or more "affordable" residential units (we shall see what "affordable" means). In a way its all "social" housing as it will all be SBC housing stock.

The finances have to fly. No point retaining all the specialists in the market and then ignore their advice- which is the right target market is at the more highly specified market rent plus 20% level. This advise will be based both on financial outcome for SBC and occupancy rates. One idea I see floated is that the flats will be designed to support shared occupation (this potentially addresses the cost issue more effectively than ignoring the market realities..)

There is an old saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". If the development didn't happen then SBC's housing stock would be 1000+ units less including minus 200 "affordable" residential units.

 

[Liam AAS]

PROTESTS MUST START NOW

What are you hoping to protest against?

 

[Liam AAS]

Worlds gone mad when a two bed flat costs £1400+ per month in Southend

Is it political to express an opinion on housing because *cracks knuckles* I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS

 

[Mr Browns Ghost]

You’ve also got to hope that none of the current consortium are having a wobble and have the money to keep funding this ongoing **** storm